|
@abaya: Because of it's fluid and exploitable nature, no, a Wiki is not a valid source for citing. This does not mean that it's information is not accurate. For example, if I was to write a paper and cite Wikipedia, I could -change it to say whatever I wanted-. I have a vested interest, and it only has to be that way momentarily (if it's reverted later, which it probably will be, it doesn't matter). However, if you're using it as a source of information, it's extremely accurate: you have no vested interest in changing the information.
Wikipedia has passed every accuracy test it's been put through with flying colors, and has far more depth and breadth of information than any other source. Are there things wrong with it? Yep...and they're fixed immediately upon discovery.
And in terms of REAL research: Wikipedia is expressly NOT a place for original research. They just report the findings of others.
@merleniau: A personal wiki can be whatever you want, and collaborative research efforts are usually phenomenally successful. It's not a Wikipedia though: Wikipedia distances itself from that by forbidding any and all original research in its pages.
|